It was a big call to over look Jack Darling..a very big call....i hope it was the right one.

It was a big call to over look Jack Darling..a very big call....i hope it was the right one.

Thanks for that Harry (hindsight)...

Lucas Cook reminds me of Tony Notte....and thats "Notte" a good thing!

After playign a few games for West Coast he now doesnt even get a run in the WAFL

Gotta love retrospectivity - the one's that got it most wrong is Gold Coast, Richmond and Brisbane - based on today and now only Swallow, Gaff and Heppell had a better or equal season so he should have gone number 4 in the draft.

( I also should have warned Jesus about those pesky Romans)

Edited January 20, 201213 yr by nutbean

Thanks for that Harry (hindsight)...

We are all clever with hindsight!

The difference is we in the outer do not get paid to get it right.

The football department at the MFC do.

I know draft selection is not an exact science and all clubs make decisions that do not pan out.

But to be honest i do not care about the other clubs.

The MFC will live or die in the next couple of years based on the decisions we made in draft selections in the period 2009 to 2011.

I think not choosing Darling was an error.

It is IMO that simple.

Cook has a long way to go to catch up.

He may do it and I seriously hope he does

The Lucas Cook recruitment looks a bit different now that we've traded for Mitch Clark - I blame Barry's tarot cards.

Edited January 20, 201213 yr by old55

( I also should have warned Jesus about those pesky Romans)

then who would martyr him?

just another case of suicide by cop

BP's job seemed to have been diluted in regards to his overall responsibility. Neil Craig has assumed part of this function as well as this overall task being made more concilliatory and less autonomous.

Cook - U18 All Aust CHF - is an unknown player, so to pass any serious judgement on his potential is a waste of time, untill sufficient time has passed for Cook to show us why Barry picked him pick 12. Barry was a great asset for the MFC, he worked hard under the instructions of the coach at the time so any changes brought in by Neeld's arrival that alter the value of a recruit is not Barry's fault. Recruiting Clarke has lowered our need for Cook to come on quickly. Neeld, as a teacher, will know how long these boys will take to ripen and show us exactly what Barry (and the Club) saw when they selected them.

The draft is a complicated version of the selection process we hd at school when class is broken into two teams by each captain alternating to select their team. When we selected Cook and missed Darling our plan valued Cook higher.

At the end of the day, when Cook plays his first game for the MFC he will have earned it, given our tall forward talent.

Edited January 20, 201213 yr by PaulRB

I have said this often but Darling did not fit the "choir boy" design so that left him out.

Just because you've said it often, doesn't make it any more valid. Do some homework on Darling's 2010 performances, which were less than stellar. FFS, every club, EVERY club passed at least once on him. He hadn't had a great year both on the field and off, and it was widely reported that his 2010 form didn't come up to what people had expected of him after his more dominant performances in 2008 and 2009. It's that that saw him slip down the rankings for all clubs, not helped by the injuries (head and also ankle earlier in the year).

Just because you've said it often, doesn't make it any more valid. Do some homework on Darling's 2010 performances, which were less than stellar. FFS, every club, EVERY club passed at least once on him. He hadn't had a great year both on the field and off, and it was widely reported that his 2010 form didn't come up to what people had expected of him after his more dominant performances in 2008 and 2009. It's that that saw him slip down the rankings for all clubs, not helped by the injuries (head and also ankle earlier in the year).

You are right my saying it often does not make it true.

Darling is doing that for me.

The injuries would have made no difference.

He was not "The Type" for the MFC so we passed.

Not unlike a lot of other clubs who all look silly now.

Edited January 20, 201213 yr by old dee

I would be extremely surprised if any club thinks they got it right in letting Darling slip to 26 (WCE aside), particularly following his season last year. He should only get better too.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is seemingly trying to justify a position that doesn't quite accord to reality IMO. Darling was one 'out of the box' - and, on any construction, that's a good thing. His character was apparently the issue, yet there were seemingly no character issues that transpired at all during last season - so the underlying fear proved to be entirely misguided. His skills and on field aggression were not ever in issue.

All this, 'let's wait and see in 4 years' starts to wear a bit thin after a while IMO. It's too convenient, and it effectively censors all such comparisons.

I'm absolutely stoked we picked Howe, but don't be thinking we pulled him completely out of the hat. When we passed over Darling at pick 12, there was absolutely no certainty Howe would be around in the 30s. Other clubs were tracking him too, including Collingwood I believe.

And Darling and Howe in the forward line would be awesome over the next 5 years or so - they'd compliment each other very nicely IMO, particularly with Mitch Clark, Jack Watts, Ricky Petterd and Liam Jurrah rotating through it too - opposition defenders wouldn't know which way to look.

Not sure we should be patting Darling on the back for getting through 1 season with no indiscretions.

Not exactly a crowning achievement.

Darling was always going to be ready to go from day dot.

Let's say hypothetically Cook becomes exactly as good as Chris Dawes.

Would you prefer to add Chris Dawes as another tall KPF, or would you rather add another good HFF to our glut of them, with Petterd, Green, Jurrah, Howe, et al..?

I'd prefer Dawes.

A glut of HFFs AND of KPFs would be much nicer.

Not sure we should be patting Darling on the back for getting through 1 season with no indiscretions.

Not exactly a crowning achievement.

Darling was always going to be ready to go from day dot.

Let's say hypothetically Cook becomes exactly as good as Chris Dawes.

Would you prefer to add Chris Dawes as another tall KPF, or would you rather add another good HFF to our glut of them, with Petterd, Green, Jurrah, Howe, et al..?

I'd prefer Dawes.

A glut of HFFs AND of KPFs would be much nicer.

It is an arguement that will go on for a while yet Lutz.

Probably another 2 years.

Every time the Weagles beat us or Darling plays well it will surface.

I hope to god Cook comes good fast so we can forget the subject.

In the mean time it fills in some time while we wait for the end of March

Edited January 20, 201213 yr by old dee

You are right my saying it often does not make it true.

Darling is doing that for me.

The injuries would have made no difference.

He was not "The Type" for the MFC so we passed.

Not unlike a lot of other clubs who all look silly now.

Not a lot of clubs, every club passed him up in the first round. West Coast were lucky they had another shot.

He was not "The Type" for the MFC so we passed.

You keep saying that, but there's no evidence that that's the case either for Melbourne or all the other clubs that also passed. He wasn't the type for any of them?

By the standards he'd set the previous two years, Darling had a pretty ordinary 2010, and that's why he dropped down the list.

We are all clever with hindsight!

The difference is we in the outer do not get paid to get it right.

The football department at the MFC do.

I know draft selection is not an exact science and all clubs make decisions that do not pan out.

But to be honest i do not care about the other clubs.

The MFC will live or die in the next couple of years based on the decisions we made in draft selections in the period 2009 to 2011.

I think not choosing Darling was an error.

It is IMO that simple.

Cook has a long way to go to catch up.

He may do it and I seriously hope he does

Well put. Posters who trot out the 'all good in hindsight' retort never want to acknowledge this argument, especially the highlighted part!

Edited January 20, 201213 yr by Range Rover

You keep saying that, but there's no evidence that that's the case either for Melbourne or all the other clubs that also passed. He wasn't the type for any of them?

By the standards he'd set the previous two years, Darling had a pretty ordinary 2010, and that's why he dropped down the list.

Definitely not the only reason. Some recruiters were quite open about the fact that "attitude concerns" played a significant role in his slide.

Also consider that Melbourne was one of few clubs other than GC explicitly looking to go with a key forward early in that draft. Most others selected midfielders with their first and second round picks. I know that Carlton were in the same boat as us looking for key forwards and backs (they opted for Matthew Watson at 18 and there runs a similar debate about the non-selection of Darling among their supporters as well).

Edited January 20, 201213 yr by Range Rover

Definitely not the only reason. Some recruiters were quite open about the fact that "attitude concerns" played a significant role in his slide. Also consider that Melbourne was one of few clubs very clearly looking to go with a key forward at 12. Most others selected midfielders with their first and second round picks.

I don't know that it was that much of a consideration, but fair enough. But surely, most other clubs selected midfielders because they thought they were better players.

BP's job seemed to have been diluted in regards to his overall responsibility. Neil Craig has assumed part of this function as well as this overall task being made more concilliatory and less autonomous.

I'm reasonably wide read when it comes to the MFC, but I may have missed something. Why had BP's role been diluted ? And where has it been stated that Neil Craig was going to assume any rule in recruiting ?

There's no doubt that Neeld wanted a different type of player to Bailey and Prendergast may have been told to recruit some mature midfielders, but I don't necessarily equate those instructions with a watered down role. But you may be right. In most clubs the recruiter gets the final say on draft day, but Neeld may have a different view.

I don't think too much should be read into one draft/trading period. It was Neeld's first and he would have deemed it important to get the type of players he wanted. With better picks next year may be very different.

Well put. Posters who trot out the 'all good in hindsight' retort never want to acknowledge this argument, especially the highlighted part!

No recruiter ever gets every pick 'right', despite being paid for the job. It's an impossible benchmark to attain. If being 'paid' is the criterion for success, investment funds would never lose money.

Aren't we all being a little premature on Cook? He's been in the system a year, been injured, and is only 19.

There's a fair case for the argument that Darling to WCE was a bit of a snow job. A fair few in involved in the game out west reckon there might have been an element of tanking there as well. Gaff and Darling are two superb picks and the club's top four 2011 finish was a bit of a surprise even given the return to fitness and form of some of the old guard.

Thanks for that Harry (hindsight)...

What is your problem?

Jack Darling is a player i think we always should of drafted. We had the chance to get him & didn't. So Lucas Cook better be bloody good. I wish him good luck.

It's interesting now to look back on this article, in particular what BP's role was, or maybe how his input was being used or valued.

Not saying it was wrong, but it may have influenced his decision.

Also, in hindsight, I'd assume the player brought up by Craig to muddy the waters would have been Magner.

As the players take a breather another meeting begins. Barry Prendergast, Neeld, Craig, Mahoney, Viney, Tim Harrington, Kelly O'Donnell and Gary Burleigh finalise strategy for the pre-season and rookie drafts.

Recruiting manager Prendergast paces back and forth from the whiteboard. The others sit facing him in a room no bigger than 6m by 6m.

Prendergast writes "Talent vs need" on the board, but it quickly becomes clear this is primarily a "need" operation.

Neeld and co. are well aware of the landscape - they are light-on for mature-age, big-bodied types who can give their kids a breather. They need some warriors to give the golden eggs time to hatch.

"We have got a lot of offensive talent and we have got them young," Neeld says. "They are being flogged ... we are quite aware we could find the tipping point with some of these kids, but we believe in a year or two they'll be better for it."

Neeld is keen on inside midfielders so that's where the discussion starts. Then comes the project tall. "He has clearly got the most upside," Prendergast says.

Prendergast does the lions' share of the talking, but is frequently tested by Neeld. O'Donnell and Viney also chip in.

Craig has been silent. Neeld turns to him and says: "What do you think, guru?" The coach wants answers on a player's perceived lack of competitiveness. Craig replies: "I've seen worse."

A fascinating, often blunt, debate rages on a range of players - current and potential. Some of it is cutting, some of it is humorous, some of it is complimentary. All of it is to the point.

"He's a toothpick" ... "He's a dead-set cross from me" ... "He's like Kung Fu Panda" ... "He's got something".

Craig leans back in his chair, listening. He has spoken once in nearly 50 minutes. Out of nowhere he sparks debate on a VFL player. "To muddy the waters, what about ... ?"

Twenty minutes later Craig's question hasn't muddied the waters, it has turned it into the Yarra after a three-day storm.

But then the conversation turns to two other potential recruits. One has superior endurance and skill, but the other is harder and tougher.

Neeld interrupts. His verdict offers the clearest insight yet into where he wants to take this club.

"Eighty thousand people, Queen's Birthday, Collingwood, Dane Swan belting the s--- out of us, who are you backing when the heat is on in the middle of the ground?" he demands.

The answers are fudgy so Neeld interrupts again: "I'm going with the grunt."

After an hour the once-orderly whiteboard looks like a half-eaten plate of spaghetti. There are names, lines, arrows and circles all over the place. Craig seeks clarification from Prendergast on Plans A, B, and C. They have finally settled.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/hours-inside-the-melbourne-demons-den/story-e6frf9jf-1226225193389

Edited January 21, 201213 yr by Lutz

"... warriors to give the golden eggs time to hatch."

If Neeld and co were talking about current players with these quotes, who were they talking about?

• "He's a toothpick" - ?
  
• "He's a dead-set cross from me" - ?
  
• "He's like Kung Fu Panda" - ?
  
• "He's got something" - ?
  

Always "go with the grunt" Neeld...

Go Dees

My guess...

Toothpick = Cale

dead set cross = Lynden Dunn

Kung Fu panda = Fitzpatrick

He's got something = Gysberts